After 2 Witnesses In 3 Years, Madras HC Sets Six-Month Trial Target And Orders Review Of Need For More PC Act Special Courts

The petitioner, the sole accused in Spl.C.No.13 of 2025 before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, sought expeditious disposal of charges under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 167 IPC.

Although charges had been framed in 2023, only two witnesses had been examined; the case had been transferred from the Chief Judicial Magistrate following administrative proceedings in 2025.

The Court called for reports on implementation of Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the arrangements for trying such cases across Tamil Nadu.

The reports disclosed 2,423 pending cases in the State as at 30 June 2026, eight exclusive Special Courts, and reliance on Principal District and Sessions Judges/Sessions Judges in the remaining 30 districts.

Section 4(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires trials, as far as practicable, to be held day to day, with an endeavour to conclude them within two years; if that period is exceeded, the Special Judge must record reasons, and extensions must be reasoned and are subject to the statutory limits, ordinarily not exceeding four years in aggregate.

Section 3 permits appointment of Special Judges from among persons who are or have been Sessions Judges or Additional Sessions Judges.

In Shahid Balwa v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCC 687, the Supreme Court recognised that Section 4(4) reflects the need for early disposal of bribery and corruption cases.

The Court considered that a day-to-day trial mandate cannot be achieved merely by directing trial courts to finish cases within two years if those courts lack time and resources.

The State-wide pendency, the substantial regular judicial and administrative duties of Principal District and Sessions Judges, and the fact that only eight districts had exclusive Special Courts supported examining additional designations and courts.

Section 3’s express inclusion of Additional Sessions Judges provided a basis for considering distribution of the workload beyond Principal District and Sessions Judges.

In the petitioner’s case, the transfer to the Sessions Court did not remove the delay arising from the fact that charges were framed in 2023 and only two witnesses had been examined; the petitioner should not bear the consequences of administrative arrangements or court workload.

The Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, coordinating with the Director of Prosecution, was directed to ensure adequate prosecuting personnel, while the courts handling these cases were directed to prioritise them and endeavour to conduct day-to-day trials, recording reasons where the statutory period is exceeded.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, was directed to endeavour to conclude the petitioner’s trial within six months of receiving the order, without unnecessary adjournments and subject to the parties’ cooperation.